ASARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Buldana on 20-7-1990 on an application (Exh. 19) presented on behalf of the State in Special Case No. 1/84 pending on his file. Charge was framed in that case u/ S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 placed on the Statute book, came into force on 9/09/1988. On behalf of the State, therefore, an application was made for amending the charge and requested that the charge under Ss. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be framed instead of one u/ S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the prosecution apprehended that in view of the provisions of the new enactment contained in S. 30 thereof, the old Act having been repealed and substituted by the new Act, the prosecution will fail on the charge framed earlier. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties agreed with the submissions made on behalf of the State and consequently amended the charge and substituted the new Sections for the old ones.

(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that this order passed by the learned Special Judge calls for interference and if allowed to stand will prejudice his client's case. According to him, there was no need for framing the new charge by replacing the old one. In order to enable me to appreciate his line of argument, it is better to reproduce S. 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads thus -

(3.) THE order passed by the learned Special Judge is in contravention of the provisions of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution which reads thus -